Wall Street Journal article on presidential portraiture

[Sharon Knettell]

Mr. McMicheal,

I think your choice of an adjective to describe Mr. Catesby Leigh was an unfortunate one. He is in fact a thoughtful critic of modern art and architecture much like Mr. Kinstler's friend Thomas Wolfe and his opinions show up in Christian journals, much like Sanden's. Frankly I find him a bit too conservative myself and do not agree with some of his points of view but he makes reasoned and educated arguments.

I think criticism is good. We all need it from time to time even if sacred cows are gored. Otherwise, we and the genre become rigid.

Here is a thoughtful essay on art Mr. Leigh wrote which I found on the Mim's atelier site. http://www.taemag.com/issues/article...cle_detail.asp

[Ant Carlos]

I cannot visualize the second image in the JHS's commentary page. Does it work for you guys?

Ant

[Dianne Gardner]

I think JHS's response was that of a gentleman and very thoughtfully presented. I agree wholeheartedly.

I love the new styles you've suggested for president Sharon!

I think the image of presidency in America has changed so much so that the portraits that we see in George Washington's time reflect how folks saw the president, and today it does the same thing. In the beginning of our nation's history the president was lifted up to a kingly position. After all, it was a kindgom that the subjects of new America stepped away from. That is why you don't see an approachable president. Because the common man didn't want to see a person capable of making mistakes...they wanted to see someone who was completely in charge and completely capable of handling the affairs of a nation with out tarnish. So the image put before the people was one of royality.

Today a man is a man and the president is also a man (or has been so far) and that is exactly what you are going to see in todays portraits. Men that are less than pure, less than holy, less than all knowing. Your next door neighbor if you will. That is why when a president is elected the whole nation can criticize him without thinking twice. In the old days only a few felt worthy enough to comment negatively on a president's decisions.

Its a sign of the times. I think it is profound and completely appropriate that Clinton's portrait is relaxed. The whole country is relaxed. Art is still keeping its place as trumpeter of the times.

Just my humble opinion!
Dianne

[Wayne McMichael]

Originally Posted by Sharon Knettell

Mr. McMicheal,

I think your choice of an adjective to describe Mr. Catesby Leigh was an unfortunate one. He is in fact a thoughtful critic of modern art and architecture much like Mr. Kinstler's friend Thomas Wolfe and his opinions show up in Christian journals, much like Sanden's.

Sorry Sharon, I just call them as I see them. Maybe we could see some of Casteby's work.

His critique is a bit like my dog Sparky criticizing my cooking isn't it? My dog isn

[Cynthia Daniel]

Originally Posted by Ant Carlos

I cannot visualize the second image in the JHS's commentary page. Does it work for you guys?

Ant

Check now.

[Garth Herrick]

Great discussion!

I have gathered up some personal snapshots from last summer to throw in. Two are portraits at the Union League in Philadelphia, which has an extensive collection of Republican presidents; some pretty dull. I do not care for their Eisenhower, Hoover, or Nixon portraits.

However I do like the two Kinstlers of Ford and Bush, Sr., and there is a nice Reagan by Shanks. Compositionally (to me), the Philadelphia Kinstler portraits are far more satisfying than the example Catesby Leigh chose from the National Gallery. The Portrait of Gerald Ford, seated, seems a companion to the standing image, authough it was painted some years later in 2004. I think the space is defined better atmospherically with that anchoring chair. Being less frontal, the pose is more interesting too. It says much about the man. The composition builds to the head, as the element with the most dramatic paint complexity and contrast. In general I really like and respect Kinstler as a leading portrait painter.

The National Gallery Ford portrait has a wonderfully strong head as well; certainly well observed from life. But to me, the rest of the painting falls relatively flat, and does not properly support the head. I saw it last summer in DC, and interestingly, I only photographed the head detail, because the portrait as a whole did not interest me enough. For me the space is confusing with its nebulous flatness. All the suit has the same paint handling as does the background, and there seem to be little if any value shifts to organize the elements in my reading of the image; so overall it is a relatively dull portrait to me. The face itself does have some depth of character though. It has wonderful passages of painting. One thing that is missing from the equation is the frame, which may be a fundamental element of the overall composition. I notice that the Philadephia Kinstler's require their frames to tie the whole image together. It's like we are deliberately viewing these through a window opening.

I hope this is not too brutal, so far...

Garth

[Ant Carlos]

Originally Posted by Cynthia Daniel

Check now.

Perfect

Ant

[Garth Herrick]

Scott Bartner and I had the good fortune to visit the National Portrait Gallery last July, and it seemed we reflected many feelings about the state of presidential portraiture there. There was quite a frenzy around Nelson Shank's portrait of William Jefferson Clinton. It was hard to even get a picture of it. It seems one painting you only luke-warmly like or absolutely hate. If one has mixed feelings, it seems to be with good reason.

This is one contemporary portrait which does have the sartorial splendor thrown in, but perhaps with a dash of triteness and superficiality (to me). The central most bothersome aspect of this painting is how it has all the compositional forces working in concert to emphasize the importance of Mr. Clinton's genital region! No really, take another look: we are talking dead center in the painting, with many other surrounding elements pointing right at it (the fingers, the tie, the newspaper, the fire box edge, the angularity of the pose gesture; all arrows). Yet there is an unmistakable deftness and wise mastery to the execution, as only Shanks can uniquely do (in Philadelphia, his Union League portraits are arguably the finest and most masterfully conceived and composed in their collection). It goes without saying, as a colorist, Nelson Shanks is very much in brilliant control of a full spectrum palette in his color development. But compositionally and content wise, I am led to question his intent with this presidential portrayal.

In these next three examples, it could be argued for comparable purposes that the epicenter of these canvases represent respectively their subjects hearts......

The portrait I think Scott and I universally liked the most was that by Anders Zorn, of Grover Cleveland. This chromatic and compositional tour-de-force was allegedly mainly painted with just Vermilion, Black, Yellow Ochre, and Flake White! At any rate, the painterly passages are truly the most lush and sumptious in their deftness and economy. What a masterful and well organized complexity! What does this success of a portrait say of this president?

Another portrait most worthy in my mind is the brilliantly edgy yet lush iconic image of George Bush Sr., by Ron Sherr. I sense a real window into his personality; both calm cool assurance, and shivering controversy! However time settles the record, this portrait will work.

There is a tight and dead-on pastel portrait of Reagan at his casual finest. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this one by Aaron Shickler? It is a dynamic and introspective look at an intensely individual personality perhaps facing his twilight. The stark simplicity works for me. Sure, this one was worked up from a photo reference, but with impeccable skill and experience.

Okay, here's the pictures: (Mind you, these are only hand-held shots in museum lighting, so I apologize for imperfections).

Garth

[Cynthia Daniel]

Originally Posted by Garth Herrick

The central most bothersome aspect of this painting is how it has all the compositional forces working in concert to emphasize the importance of Mr. Clinton's genital region! No really, take another look: we are talking dead center in the painting, with many other surrounding elements pointing right at it (the fingers, the tie, the newspaper, the fire box edge, the angularity of the pose gesture; all arrows).

I'm so glad you posted the portrait of Clinton. I searched earlier but had only been able to find shots of the upper part of the portrait and did not understand what the hubbub was about. Now that I see the full portrait, well, you have some excellent points - to which I will add: The tilt of his head and look on his face seem rather "come-hither" to me. And, with the fingers pointing along with the jacket pulled back - it does look quite insinuating.

Ron Sherr's portrait of Bush is one of my all-time favorite portraits. I'm glad you agree.

[Sharon Knettell]

Come hither? From what I have read, half of the women's press corps would have.

I hate to comment on current presidential portraits as I think other than the fame, money and glory that goes with them, they are a thankless artistic task. That is said of course by one who has a flea's chance in hell to get one.

That said, I do not think that this is Shanks at his best. The portrait looks more like Ted Koppel. If is wasn't a portrayal of Clinton, it would just be a middle aged man in a surprisingly unpressed suit.